Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Which is more like the Star Wars EU.

Exactly. You people love the RETCON, so I really can't see why Marvel getting the license would be a problem it that aspect.

The bolded part is where I see an issue. Ideally, of course we'd like to have innovative, fresh new stories that can sustain themselves, if not based on monthly sales, then with other methods. But if I were in charge with an eye aimed solely maximizing profits? I don't think I'd be looking at it nearly as favorably. Monthly sales targets are easy measures. You put series up against each, the losers get cut, the winners taken as reference for the next series that comes along.

DH probably does very good business with their TPBs, but I'm not optimistic that the return is greater than what Marvel makes on a monthly basis.

The problem with this is that it assumes that the trade market will at least broadly follow the single-issue market in terms of what's popular, which isn't even remotely true. Okay, sure very broadly you can say things like, "Everyone loves Batman," but here's a list of the best-selling trades of 2011 - http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/597?articleID=117102

Towards the end of the year, DC stages a comeback with a line-wide relaunch that gave them market dominance October through December, but for the majority of the year, Marvel were kicking DC's ass in sales, both dollar and unit share. I think this was the year that DC's share fell to the lowest it had been since...some time long ago right before the relaunch was announced. Marvel were tearing the place up. Other than the Walking Dead and Buffy, not much outside of DC and Marvel ever get into the top 100 in the singles charts.

As you can see, in the linked list, Marvel do not make a single entry until #49. And it's not a traditional superhero book, it's Kick-Ass. There's not an entry for a Marvel Universe book until #87 with an Uncanny X-Force collection.

The entire chart is skewed away from the cape comics, at least as they're found in the singles charts. DC make a bigger dent, partly due to the Vertigo imprint, but you'll also see a lot of Batman. Some of this stuff is just collected issues - usually story arcs with "prestige" value, like Hush - but a lot of the Batman stuff you'll see there is non-continuity standalone stuff, designed with the bookstore market in mind - original one-shot graphic novels, like the #7 entry, Batman: Noel. There're also a lot of perennial bestsellers up there, like The Dark Knight Returns, which has been in print since 1986, or Watchmen, which needs no introduction. These products are why Batman has such presence in the charts, not so much his "it'll always sell no matter what's in it," monthly comic. (eta: it occurs to me that by dropping it in there it makes it look like I think Batman is in Watchmen; don't worry, I wasn't trying to turn Nite Owl into Batman through an accident of grammar...)

Anyway, it's important to note that the linked chart is Diamond's sales chart, so this is a list of what graphic novels are being sold to comic shops because I know that DC and Marvel, at least, use different distributors for actual bookstores like Barnes & Noble, etc. I'm not sure about Dark Horse. The actual graphic novel market is larger than this, is what I'm saying, but the fact that we're talking about the purchasing habits of the same people at the comic store level, shows how drastically people's buying habits vary when you talk about singles vs trades.

My point is, if you used the singles charts to predict the trade charts, you probably wouldn't guess it'd be ruled by an indie book about zombies, nearly 30 year old Batman stories, and a comic about fairytale characters that never, ever cracks the top 100 in the singles.

Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Which is more like the Star Wars EU.

Exactly. You people love the RETCON, so I really can't see why Marvel getting the license would be a problem it that aspect.

Since when does anyone here like to retcon? I don't see many jumping for joy at the retcons that have to be made to accommodate TCW. In SW at least, retcons are annoying business, done simply for the sake of making the universe slightly more coherent.

Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Which is more like the Star Wars EU.

Exactly. You people love the RETCON, so I really can't see why Marvel getting the license would be a problem it that aspect.

Since when does anyone here like to retcon? I don't see many jumping for joy at the retcons that have to be made to accommodate TCW. In SW at least, retcons are annoying business, done simply for the sake of making the universe slightly more coherent.

Are you serious? I've read many a thread with news that Pena had retconned some before out of continuity piece of work and people lapping it up like little doggies. Or the many threads where people tried to retcon the 15 minute short CW cartoon with LOE. Oh yes the love fore the retcon is very strong here. If it wasn't people wouldn't try to do it with the TCW cartoon, and people would love it for what it is.

DC has done a lot more full-on continuity reboots and in-universe timeline changes than Marvel, but Marvel has been adjusting their comics for a long time too, partially to keep up with the times (the Iron Man thing for instance). Although Marvel has somewhat followed DC's lead with launching a bunch of #1s in the last few months. Quite a few series end and are renamed, renumbered or their characters are moved else or abandoned after every event, but this current Marvel Now is a bit more drastic than the normal post-event shakeup. They're also trying to align things a bit more closely with the movies probably to try to get more business (like that new Nick Fury, well, technically his newly created son who just happens to look a lot like the move-version).

I'm mostly afraid if/when Marvel gets the license they'll start doing "events" with Star Wars and... their events are usually pretty stupid. Not all, but a lot of them. Not that DC's events are that much better, but Marvel's events tend to be more depressing or so over-handed with the "yay, Captain America/Avengers/Avengers Assemble!/Avengers Assemble!/Avengers Assemble!" its gets boring fast. It doesn't help that it almost seems like some of the recent novel series ripped off ideas from Civil War and Dark Reign, so if the comics ended up with plots like that too....

The transfer shouldn't happen for some time yet, unless Disney gets really impatient and just ends the contract early (though probably not) to start gearing up for the Episode VII launch and/or to reorganize the EU to get ready for VII, but the comics have long been a reassuring reminder of how awesome Star Wars could be, as the rest of the Star Wars was taken over by things like TFU and LotF, so it'll be a sad day when Dark Horse loses the license.

Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Which is more like the Star Wars EU.

Exactly. You people love the RETCON, so I really can't see why Marvel getting the license would be a problem it that aspect.

Since when does anyone here like to retcon? I don't see many jumping for joy at the retcons that have to be made to accommodate TCW. In SW at least, retcons are annoying business, done simply for the sake of making the universe slightly more coherent.

I'd rather have a single consistent continuity of history and lore with the occasional retcon, than a overly confusing continuity mess of multiverse with REBOOT AFTER REBOOT AFTER REBOOT that DC comics tend to do.

Marvel usually doesn't do the whole reboot thing. They more retcon stuff. Depending on which history you follow Tony Stark was wounded and needed his core during the Vietnam War, Gulf War, or in Afghanistan.

Which is more like the Star Wars EU.

Exactly. You people love the RETCON, so I really can't see why Marvel getting the license would be a problem it that aspect.

Since when does anyone here like to retcon? I don't see many jumping for joy at the retcons that have to be made to accommodate TCW. In SW at least, retcons are annoying business, done simply for the sake of making the universe slightly more coherent.

I'd rather have a single consistent continuity of history and lore with the occasional retcon, than a overly confusing continuity mess of multiverse with REBOOT AFTER REBOOT AFTER REBOOT that DC comics tend to do.

Ok, I guess it's a good thing that Star Wars isn't going to DC in that case.

A setting with multiple authors that makes perfect coherent sense and requires no explanations for discrepancies is indeed a thing of wonder. Let me know if one ever exists.

Even single author universes have problems with consistency - Tolkien's Unfinished Tales are a sterling example. But to quote myself (quoting a Marvel character): "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." Bringing up retcons is a red herring. What's at stake is:
a) Fan-favorite Star Wars authors no longer writing Star Wars (unless they get hired by Marvel)
b) New stories with no references to DHC stories whatsoever.
c) Being part of the overall ending of the EU for a new EU.

Of course, this entire "news story" came from a blog which has no official information and with no comment by Marvel or Dark Horse - so really, there's nothing new about any of this.

The problem with this is that it assumes that the trade market will at least broadly follow the single-issue market in terms of what's popular, which isn't even remotely true. Okay, sure very broadly you can say things like, "Everyone loves Batman," but here's a list of the best-selling trades of 2011 - http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/597?articleID=117102.

The assumption is less that, and more that I'm not sure Marvel cares about the TPB market. Particularly if it's already something they're not really on top of.

Are you serious? I've read many a thread with news that Pena had retconned some before out of continuity piece of work and people lapping it up like little doggies. Or the many threads where people tried to retcon the 15 minute short CW cartoon with LOE. Oh yes the love fore the retcon is very strong here. If it wasn't people wouldn't try to do it with the TCW cartoon, and people would love it for what it is.

Think about it. Retcons have numerous purposes in comics, but in Star Wars, their sole purpose is to fix problems with canon. Almost no one here loves needless retcons; changing backstories is something that's highly frowned upon (take a look at Bane). The difference is that most of those kinds of retcons are a reaction to something else, an attempt to make it better, instead of a retcon for retcons sake.

The reason people reacted so positively to Pena's retcons is because they were better than the alternative, because a problem in the narrative made it necessary. If Star Wars was perfect in its consistency, it wouldn't need retcons. It's like surviving a bullet wound. It's fantastic that you're still breathing, but you still wish you hadn't been shot in the first place.

The assumption is less that, and more that I'm not sure Marvel cares about the TPB market. Particularly if it's already something they're not really on top of.

Oh, on that I completely agree, sadly. That's what I'm concerned about. It could make Star Wars look like a poorer property to publish than it is and could lead to downsizing, or poorer quality creators being put on it. That's why I'm hypothetically (cus hopefully it won't happen!) concerned. That their disinterest in the TPB market will harm the books and they'll blame Star Wars not their own marketing.

The assumption is less that, and more that I'm not sure Marvel cares about the TPB market. Particularly if it's already something they're not really on top of.

Oh, on that I completely agree, sadly. That's what I'm concerned about. It could make Star Wars look like a poorer property to publish than it is and could lead to downsizing, or poorer quality creators being put on it. That's why I'm hypothetically (cus hopefully it won't happen!) concerned. That their disinterest in the TPB market will harm the books and they'll blame Star Wars not their own marketing.

Whichever way you slice it, not caring about the TPB market is commercially stupid. It's estimated there are only a few thousand comic shops in the US and they're generally decreasing, in comparison, how many bookshops are there? Then there's the big online booksellers like Amazon. Comic shops sell to comic fans, most of whom are wedded to the monthly release out of sentiment, there's nothing wrong with that, but bookshops cater to a larger and more diverse crowd, it's a much bigger market. Why would any company not be interested in tapping this?